Globally, AACSB accreditation is the most prestigious quality mark. It may take many years of concentrated effort and substantial financial investment to achieve AACSB accreditation. Before embarking on this accreditation journey, many business schools wonder whether their investment will yield a tangible return, especially in terms of student enrollment.
Several studies have attempted to link AACSB accreditation to various measures of business school performance, including student enrollment. Cameron et al. (2023) find that receiving AACSB accreditation elevates a school’s ranking, potentially attracting more students. Additionally, Ito (2022) suggests that AACSB accreditation can increase graduate student enrollment, particularly for teaching-oriented business schools. This notion is challenged by the study by Doh et al. (2018), indicating that HBCU business schools do not always get more enrollment through AACSB accreditation.
It can be argued that the results are mixed because it is difficult to develop a solid, longitudinal design that ties AACSB accreditation to school performance. There are many benefits of AACSB accreditation (Ito, 2022) but it is not the only variable that affects a business school’s performance. Other forces, such as demographic trends or competition, affect enrollment much more than accreditation in some markets.
Additionally, our experience indicates that accreditation efforts can have many negative effects in the short term. Having AACSB accreditation can, for example, lead to faculty attrition (because some faculty members may not wish to adhere to higher research standards or be involved in general quality improvement) or even to a drop in student enrollment (since some students prefer schools with lower academic standards where they can earn degrees more easily). According to Cameron et al. (2023), schools pursuing AACSB accreditation have “flatter undergraduate enrollment” than those not pursuing it.
It can be argued that AACSB accreditation is largely about creating and implementing a long-term plan for improving a business school. It’s a unique journey business schools choose to take. It’s hard to predict with certainty whether this journey will result in higher enrollment. The opposite outcome is quite possible. Dumond and Johnson (2013) suggest possible drawbacks or challenges associated with AACSB accreditation processes, such as limiting business schools’ ability to adjust to change. In some cases, business schools can make a strategic mistake by abandoning their current market in favor of one in which they have no advantage.
These errors in strategic planning, something that no business school is immune to, are likely to lead to lower enrollment. Peer Review Teams will often notice that a school lacks healthy enrollment and a viable financial position and require the school to address both. Unfortunately, not every business school can be successful at implementing these strategies, even with oversight from AACSB.
References
Cameron, M., McCannon, B. C., & Starr, K. (2023). AACSB accreditation and student demand. Southern Economic Journal, 90(2), 317-340.
Doh, L., Prince, D., McLain, M., & Credle, S. (2018). The impact of the AACSB accreditation on enrollment growth at HBCU(historically black colleges and universities) business schools. Pressacademia, 5(2), 130-141.
Dumond, E. J., & Johnson, T. W. (2013). Managing university business educational quality: ISO or AACSB?. Quality Assurance in Education, 21(2), 127-144.
Ito, H. (2022). Competing through international accreditation: cost-benefit analysis and process of AACSB for a business school in Japan. International Journal of Educational Management, 36(7), 1380-1393.
For decades, graduate business schools around the world have been using the GRE (Graduate Record Examination) and GMAT (Graduate Management Admission Test) scores as one of the major selection criteria. Today, some business schools are beginning to de-emphasize the importance of GRE and GMAT scores in their admission criteria, recognizing that they might not be the most accurate predictors of success in a graduate business program. Standardized test scores are being used as optional by many graduate business programs, including some of the top ones.
On the one hand, standardized test scores serve as a simple and reliable criteria for assessing certain skills of aspiring applicants, such as quantitative reasoning and analytical writing skills. On other hand, standardized tests have been plagued with numerous issues when used as the primary selection criteria for business school applicants. Some of the problems are discussed below:
Limited Assessment: GRE and GMAT scores primarily assess quantitative and verbal reasoning skills, along with analytical writing ability. They may not fully capture an applicant’s broader skill set, such as leadership, creativity, communication, and interpersonal skills. These “soft skills” are crucial for success in business and management. It has been observed by many business schools that some applicants with outstanding test scores lack these skills and do not even seem to show a great deal of potential to improve.
Test Anxiety: Some students experience test anxiety, which can negatively impact their performance on standardized tests. There are some business schools that worry that requiring standardized test scores may discourage potential applicants from applying.
Bias: It has been argued in research literature that standardized tests can exhibit cultural, socioeconomic, and gender biases that may disadvantage certain groups of applicants. As a result, requiring standardized tests may put certain groups at a disadvantage, creating an unfair admission process.
Reduced Diversity: Relying heavily on standardized tests might inadvertently limit the diversity of the admitted student body. Candidates from non-traditional backgrounds, different industries, or with unique skill sets may not be accurately represented by these tests.
Preparation Disparities: Performance on GRE and GMAT can be influenced by the extent of test preparation. Students who can afford to spend time and money on test prep courses or resources might have an advantage, potentially leading to inequities in the admissions process. For example, younger students may have more time on their hands to prepare for these tests in comparison to older, working adults. Thus, this may put busy, experienced executives at a disadvantage when applying to programs that actually have experienced executives as their target market.
Mismatch with Program Goals: For some business programs that focus on specialized fields or non-traditional business disciplines, GRE and GMAT scores might not align well with the specific skills and knowledge required for success in those areas.
COVID-19 Disruptions: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused disruptions in test administration, including cancellations and changes to the testing format. This has prompted some schools to temporarily or permanently waive standardized test requirements.
Cheating: While companies administering standardized tests take numerous precautions to protect the integrity of the examination process, some students still manage to cheat on these exams. In the COVID-19 era, many standardized tests were administered online, which exacerbated the issue. Admission professionals and program directors routinely come across applicants with “sky high” test scores who appear to lack basic quantitative and verbal skills. Some graduate business programs choose to interview all the applicants to verify their skills and credentials “in person”.
Given these challenges, many business schools are reevaluating the role of GRE and GMAT scores in their admissions process and considering more holistic approaches that consider a wider range of factors when evaluating applicants. Some business schools are moving towards more holistic admission approaches, considering factors like work experience, recommendation letters, interviews, and personal statements. Overreliance on GRE/GMAT scores might overshadow these valuable insights into an applicant’s suitability for the program.
While many accredited business schools do require standardized test scores as a part of their admission process, it should be noted that some of the most prominent accreditation agencies for business schools, such as AACSB, do not explicitly require standardized test scores to be used in business school admission. An accredited business school is typically required to have a formal admission process to select applicants who are likely to master the program learning outcomes. Therefore, accreditation agencies emphasize overall education quality rather than specific selection criteria.
As a way to attract and retain quality employees who can support the mission and goals of the college, internationally accredited business schools generally offer above-average market compensation to their faculty and staff.
According to AACSB’s 2019–20 Staff Compensation and Demographics Survey, the overall average nine-month salary for faculty at AACSB accredited schools (across all ranks and disciplines) is approximately 131 thousand USD; the median is 12 thousand USD. ZipRecruiter, a leading employment website in the United States, reports that the average compensation for a business school professor in the United States in 2023 is approximately 103 thousand USD. The compensation offered by AACSB-accredited schools is therefore noticeably higher than the market average.
A business school’s strategic planning begins with a good mission statement. Having a formal and sustainable strategic planning process is a formal requirement of all major accreditation agencies for business schools. For example, EQUIS standards require every accredited business school to “define the School’s mission and explain how it relates to its identity.” (EQUIS Standards & Criteria, Chapter 1, 2023). Similarly, AACSB requires that every accredited business school should “articulate a clear and focused mission for the school” as a part of its strategic planning process (AACSB Guiding Principles and Standards for Business Accreditation, Standard 1, 2023).
A good mission statement is essential for every business school’s survival and success in the face of growing competition in business education. A mission statement serves as a concise and impactful declaration of a school’s purpose and core values. It should effectively communicate the organization’s reason for existence, its target audience, and its guiding principles.
In order to succeed, a business school needs to be known for something. Almost everything that the school does and everyone that the school is affiliated with should contribute to this reputation. Without this focus and distinctiveness, your business schools will be lost among numerous other “me too” schools, eventually suffering declining enrollment and shortages of essential resources.
Here are some characteristics of a good mission statement for a business school:
Clear and Concise: A good mission statement is clear, straightforward, and concise. All stakeholders should be able to understand it, including students, faculty, staff, and employers. A mission statement should not more than a few sentences.
Specific and Focused: The mission statement should clearly outline the school’s primary purpose and focus. It should avoid being overly broad, generic, or vague. Being “everything to everyone” is one of the worst strategies a business school can pursue.
Inspiring and Motivating: A mission statement should motivate and inspire all stakeholders. It should create a sense of purpose and passion among students, faculty, and staff.
Timeless: Business “buzzwords”, educational technologies, and pedagogical “fads” come and go. Strategies and goals of a business school may change over time too. In spite of all the changes in the external and internal environment, a good mission statement should remain relevant and timeless. It should provide a sense of continuity and stability for the school and serve as the most important foundation for all strategic decisions.
Unique and Differentiating: The mission statement should clearly highlight what sets your business school apart from thousands of other business schools across the globe. It should emphasize the organization’s unique value proposition to students. Being a “me too” business school is a sure path to mediocrity and declining enrollments.
Realistic and Achievable: While the mission statement should be aspirational, it should also be grounded in reality. Not everybody can be a Harvard Business School, serving the needs of executives from Fortune 500 companies. This is okay. Not everybody wants to commute in a Mercedes or Ferrari. People also need affordable and reliable Toyotas and Fords that get them where they want to be.
Aligned the Mission of the University: The mission statement should align with the university’s vision, mission, values, and goals. It should reflect the principles that guide decision-making and actions within the broader organization that the business school is a part of.
Student-Centric: A good mission statement should focus on delivering value to the school’s target audience. It should emphasize the impact the school aims to have on its students and the broader community that it serves.
Memorable: A memorable mission statement is more likely to be embraced by all the stakeholders. A creative statement with strong language and imagery can make it more memorable. Business schools should stay away from confusing “academic talk” or business jargon. The mission of the business school should be recited or explained by every faculty member in his or her own words. Reviewers from accreditation agencies often ask faculty whether they can explain the mission of their business schools.
Inclusive: The mission statement should be inclusive, embracing all the relevant stakeholders: students, faculty, staff, alumni, and employers.
Communicable: A good mission statement should be easily communicated across all levels of the business school. It should be accessible and relatable to everyone involved with the school. Each business school should invest time and resources in spreading awareness of its mission statement.
Measurable: Although a mission statement is not a strategic plan, it should be possible to evaluate the organization’s progress and alignment with its mission over time. Lengthy, broad, generic, and vague mission statements make such evaluation difficult.
Crafting a compelling and effective mission statement often involves lengthy collaboration and reflection among key stakeholders to ensure that it accurately represents the organization’s identity, aspirations, and principles. Unfortunately, many business schools do not have anyone formally in charge of the strategic planning process. Mission statements are often drafted or revised just before accreditation or reaccreditation report submission deadlines.
Triple crown accreditation refers to a prestigious recognition awarded to business schools that have achieved accreditation from three prominent international accreditation bodies for business education. These three major accrediting organizations are:
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB): AACSB accreditation is widely regarded as the most rigorous and prestigious accreditation for business schools. It focuses on evaluating the quality of a business school’s faculty, curriculum, teaching methods, and research output.
European Quality Improvement System (EQUIS): EQUIS is a European-based accreditation body that assesses the overall quality and internationalization of business schools. It evaluates aspects such as governance, programs, student body, research, and engagement with the corporate world.
Association of MBAs (AMBA): AMBA is a global accreditation body specifically focused on MBA programs. It assesses the curriculum, faculty, student diversity, and career services of MBA programs offered by business schools.
Achieving triple crown accreditation signifies that the school has met stringent international standards of excellence in business education and is recognized for delivering high-quality programs with global relevance. Triple crown accreditation is a mark of distinction and can enhance a business school’s reputation and attractiveness to prospective students and employers. It is estimated that only one percent (approximately 120) of business schools have achieved triple crown accreditation. Even so, triple crown accreditation does not imply that the school is among the top one percent of business schools worldwide.
Achieving triple crown accreditation is a challenging and lengthy process that requires a strong commitment to continuous improvement and academic excellence. As a result, only a select number of business schools around the world have earned this distinguished status. Furthermore, business schools in Europe and Asia are more likely to pursue triple crown accreditation than those in the United States.
Obtaining an international accreditation for a business school usually requires extensive revisions of existing curriculum in order to meet the requirements of curriculum-specific accreditation standards. For example, Standard 4 of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) requires that “the school delivers content that is current, relevant, forward-looking, globally oriented, aligned with program competency goals, and consistent with its mission, strategies, and expected outcomes” (AACSB International, 2022). Similarly, Standard 6 of the Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP) requires that “the curriculum must be comprised of appropriate business and professional content to prepare graduates for success” and that the business school “must have a systematic process to ensure continuous improvement of curriculum and program delivery” (ACBSP, 2022). In this article, we talk about the most important elements of a business curriculum and how these elements can be aligned in order to meet the accreditation requirements and build an effective, self-sustaining quality assurance system in relation to business curriculum.
Curriculum Elements
In short, curriculum describes what is taught at a business school and how it is taught (Squires, 2012). A curriculum is usually formalized using a document or a plan that spells out the following:
Program learning outcomes (PLOs) that graduates must master
Course learning outcomes (CLOs) or goals that outline smaller and specific learning objectives to be achieved within each course comprising the program
Alignment of program learning outcomes (PLOs) and course learning outcomes (CLOs); this alignment is usually provided with the help of a course alignment matrix (CAM) that shows how individual courses and their CLOs support PLOs
Appropriate assessment tools that can be used to measure CLOs and/or PLOs
The content or material to be taught within each course comprising the program in the form of course syllabi
There are many other elements that comprise a curriculum (see Table 1). All these elements must be properly aligned to ensure effective development of the desired competencies among students.
Curriculum Element
Description
College Mission
Defines the aim of a college, its main reason for existence
Market Conditions
Economic marketplaces often dictate which professions or competencies are in demand in the workplace
Compliance Standards
Accreditation and governing bodies often mandate competencies that a particular program needs to develop
Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs)
High-level goals (or competencies) that students are expected to attain as a result of completing a particular program of study
Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs)
Specific course-level objectives (or competencies) that students are expected to attain as a result of completing a specific course
Course Materials
Training materials used as part of a course: textbooks, books, journals and journal articles, electronic and multimedia materials, etc.
Pedagogy
Various theories, methods, or tools employed to develop competencies among students
Technology
Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) used to deliver course content
Physical Resources
Physical facilities (e.g., classrooms, labs, specialized equipment, etc.) allocated to a course or program
Credit Hours
Amount of face-to-face or online interaction between a student and an instructor devoted to a particular course or program
Assurance of Learning (AoL)
How attainment of particular learning outcomes (or competencies) is assessed and reported at the course and program level
Table 1. Curriculum Elements (Camba & Krotov, 2015)
Curriculum Alignment
Curriculum alignment can be viewed as a triangle with the following three cornerstones: curriculum, teacher, and test (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Curriculum Alignment Model (English, 2000)
The model shows the need for the three elements to be connected or aligned. Educational goals that are targeted by the curriculum become the basis of defining the work to be done by teachers. Formal testing (or assessment) is used to evaluate the degree to which teachers further deliver the educational goals set forth by the curriculum. Thus, a well-aligned curriculum can also be viewed as a self-sufficient quality control system.
The model shows the need for the three elements to be connected or aligned. Educational goals that are targeted by the curriculum become the basis of defining the work to be done by teachers. Formal testing (or assessment) is used to evaluate the degree to which teachers further deliver the educational goals set forth by the curriculum. Thus, a well-aligned curriculum can also be viewed as a self-sufficient quality control system.
Managing Curriculum Alignment
Lewin’s process-based change management model (see Figure 2) can be used as a guiding framework for an effective curriculum alignment initiative.
Figure 2. Lewin’s Change Management Model (Kaminski, 2011)
Figure 2. Lewin’s Change Management Model (Kaminski, 2011)
The first stage of the curriculum alignment process is the so-called “unfreeze” stage. This stage aims to prepare for the desired changes in the curriculum by having clear and open communication with all the relevant stakeholders in relation to the desired changes in the curriculum. In this stage, people involved in delivering and managing the curriculum analyze the current curriculum and identify the changes that are necessary in order to meet the accreditation standards or achieve the desired improvements in relation to the curriculum. All the stakeholders participating in the “unfreeze” stage need to be convinced that new materials, structures, and processes must be adopted in order to achieve desired improvements. In the second stage called “change,” the stakeholders implement the intended changes to the curriculum. This phase is time-consuming, confusing, and costly. The third stage of the curriculum alignment process is the “refreeze” stage. During this stage, changes to the curriculum are stabilized. The main concern in this phase is to ensure that change becomes a permanent part of the normal process and the system does not revert to the old ways and habits.
Camba, P., & Krotov, V. (2015). Critical success factors in the curriculum alignment process: The case of the college of business at Abu Dhabi University. Journal of Education for Business, 90(8), 451-457.
English, F. W. (2000). Deciding What to Teach and Test: Developing, Aligning, and Auditing the Curriculum. California: Corwin Press, Inc.
Glatthorn, A. A. (1999). Curriculum alignment revisited. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 15(1), 26.
Kaminski, J. (2011). Theory applied to informatics-Lewin’s change theory. Canadian Journal of Nursing Informatics, 6(1).
Squires, D. (2012). Curriculum alignment research suggests that alignment can improve student achievement. Clearing House, 85(4), 129-135.
The 2020 Business Accreditation Standards by AACSB require a business to “maintain an ongoing risk analysis, identifying potential risks that could significantly impair its ability to fulfill the school’s mission, as well as a contingency plan for mitigating these risks.” With the recent events surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on educational institutions around the globe, there is a growing realization among business schools and their leaders of the importance and usefulness of Risk Management in their organizations. In this article, we briefly discuss the Risk Management Process and offer simple, practical guidelines on how to identify, analyze, and mitigate risks with the help of a formal Risk Management Plan that is aligned with a broader Strategic Management Plan devised by a business school.
Simplifying Assumptions
In this article, we make a number of assumptions in relation to Risk Management (see Figure 1). We believe that these assumptions will simplify the Risk Management Process and make it more effective in mitigating the identified future risk events.
Figure 1. Risk Management Assumptions
Figure 1. Risk Management Assumptions
First, we believe that Risk Management is not a “bulletproof shield” for protecting a business school against all possible risks. It is rather a tool or a method that, if used effectively, can reduce the negative impact of risk on the organization. Risk Management can also be misused and turn into a vain exercise. This usually happens when the Risk Management process is (a) based on flawed analysis that does not properly identify and analyze important risks, (b) too complex and, thus, impractical, or (c) not backed by adequate resources required for risk mitigation. Second, we also believe that Risk Management is subjective. Risk Management is much closer to art rather than science; it is based on subjective reasoning and viewpoints, requires imagination for proper risk identification, and is heavily impacted by the “unknowns.” Because of that, we are strongly against a naïve, overly quantitative approach to Risk Management. We do support a formal, structured approach to risk analysis that makes use of appropriate quantitative and qualitative factors. Third, we believe that simplicity is the most effective response to the inherent complexity and serendipity of the environment that many business schools are operating it. We believe that overly complex, highly structured plans are inherently “fragile” in the face of the uncertain, highly complex, and turbulent environment that many business schools are increasingly finding themselves in. Simple, agile plans and structures are more robust and effective during the times of turbulence and uncertainty.
Risk Management Process
Risk Management can be defined as a continuous process comprised of the following steps or phases: analysis of strategic priorities and relevant internal and external factors, identification and definition of risk bearing events, analysis of risks based on likelihood and severity of their impact, mitigating risks by devising response strategies and actions and assigning people responsible for these actions, and monitoring of risks and periodic reporting in relation to these risks to key stakeholders (see Figure 2). Each of these steps is discussed in more detail in the sections below.
Figure 2. Risk Management Process
Analyzing Strategic Priorities and Relevant Internal and External Factors
Risk Management starts with the analysis of the current strategic priorities. As explained in Standard 1 of the 2020 Business Accreditation Standards published by AACSB, risk management is a part of a broader strategic management process and should be carried out in a way that supports a business school in attaining its strategic goals and objectives. Many of the internal and external risks can be identified by analyzing an organization’s internal strengths and weaknesses together with external opportunities and threats (the so-called SWOT analysis).
Identifying and Defining Risks
After this analysis, the organization should be able to identify and clearly describe important risk bearing events it is facing in relation to its internal and external environments. Examples of external risks include:
Growing competition for students among existing educational institutions
Drops in enrollment due to demographics changes
Deficit of resources due to worsening economic conditions
Examples of internal risks include:
Decreases in funding due to budgeting changes at the university level
Inadequate staffing
Turnover in leadership
A table with clear descriptions of identified risks should be the main deliverable of the risk identification and definition phase.
Analyzing Risks Based on Likelihood and Impact
While all kinds of risks can and should be identified as a part of the Risk Management process, not all risks have the same estimated likelihood and potential impact. Thus, each risk should be carefully analyzed to determine (1) the likelihood of an event occurring and (2) severity of its impact (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Risk Categories
This categorization of risks allows one to prioritize attention and resources in relation to possible future events. Events that are very likely to occur and which can possibly have a great impact on an organization should be treated as critical events. These events require special attention and resources to prevent their negative impact on the organization. Possible future events with moderate likelihood and moderate-to-high impact should be treated as important risk events. While being treated with adequate attention and resources, as a rule, these events should require less attention and resources than critical events with high likelihood and high impact. Low likelihood events with moderate-to-high impact should require a moderate level of attention and resources. Events with moderate-to-high likelihood and low impact should be acknowledged and dealt with, but with a minimum level of resources. Finally, events with low likelihood and low impact should be discussed but probably excluded from a formal risk management plan to keep it simple.
Mitigating Risks by Devising Mitigation Actions and Assigning Responsibilities
After analyzing each possible risk event in terms of its likelihood and impact on the organization, possible actions for mitigating these risks should be devised. It is important to assign to each risk event a “risk owner”—a person responsible for taking a lead on these risk mitigation actions. More thought and extra planning should be put into critical and important events. Important organizational leaders should not be “overextended”; they should be assigned as “leads” only to critical and important risk events.
Monitoring Risks and Establishing Period Reporting to Key Stakeholders
People in charge of the specific risks should be given the formal task of monitoring the internal and external environment of a business school and carrying out mitigation actions designed to protect the organization from a possible negative impact of an event in a proactive fashion or carrying out emergency actions designed to minimize the impact of an event that has occurred already. Without a person responsible for monitoring and mitigating a potential risk event, the organization my find itself in a situation where the event is not identified or dealt with in a timely fashion. Periodic updates by people assigned to risk events should be sent to the dean. The dean can compile all of these reports in a formal Risk Management Plan update that is sent to all the key stakeholders quarterly, biannually, or annually—depending on the complexity and uncertainty of the environment that the school is operating in.
Risk Management Plan
The most important deliverable of the Risk Management process is in the form of a formal risk management plan that is updated periodically, depending on the Strategic Planning cycle length of a business school. The main elements of an effective Risk Management Plan are summarized in Table 1 below.
Strategic Goal 1 – Emphasize Faculty & Staff Development
Risk Description
Importance
Risk Owner
Mitigation Actions
ReportingTimeline
Status Updates
Inferior instructional quality in online courses
Critical
Dept. Chairs, Faculty
Comprehensive faculty training, audit of online classes
On-going
All online courses have been reviewed using a standard quality rubric
Failure to attract and retain qualified faculty
Important
Dean, Dept. Chairs
Faculty development opportunities, faculty satisfaction survey
Annual
A formal business faculty development program was established in collaboration with the Faculty Development Center
Failure to maintain appropriate portfolio of qualified faculty
Important
Dept. Chairs, Assoc. Dean
Develop and maintain a faculty resource plan
Annual
A faculty resource plan has been designed in accordance with AACSB definitions
Failure to maintain AACSB accreditation
Moderate
Dean, Assoc. Dean
Ensure adherence to AACSB standards, focus on continuous improvement
On-going
Faculty sufficiency issue has been communicated to the university’s senior leaders
Table 1. Elements of a Risk Management Plan
Note that the plan contains all the outcomes or deliverables of the steps or phases of the Risk Management Process discussed above. Periodic status updates reported by the people in charge of the risk events are appended to each of the identified risks. Another important characteristic of this Risk Management Plan summary is that it is explicitly linked to Strategic Goal 1 found in the Strategic Plan of the business school.
A young, large private university in the Middle East undergoing initial accreditation with WASC and AACSB.
Client Requirements
Designing a simple and robust Assurance of Learning system for a Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) executive doctoral program offered by a large private university in the Middle East. The system had to meet the following requirements:
a) Compliant with AACSB Standards. The College of Business where the program was offered was going through initial accreditation with AACSB; therefore, the system had to meet all the AACSB requirements in relation to AoL
b) Simple. The system had to be simple enough so that the DBA faculty could quickly understand and contribute to the continuous quality improvement program based on this AoL system. This was important to accommodate changes in the faculty roster teaching in the DBA program as well as general changes in the policies and the curriculum of this newly established DBA program
c)Reliable. The system had to produce reliable, useful results. It was important for the system to have a “pre-test” and then a “post-test” to produce meaningful results in relation to program learning goals. Also, the measurement tools had to incorporate both quantitative and qualitative results for further improvements.
Solution
As the first step, the curriculum of the DBA program was aligned along the five Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs). The results of the curriculum alignment process are provided in the Course Alignment (CAM) matrix below (see Figure 1):
Figure 1. Course Alignment Matrix (CAM) for the DBA Program
The extent to which Doctoral of Business Administration (DBA) students have mastered the learning outcomes of the program is assessed at 3 strategic points: METH 1 “Introduction to Business Research” course (Assessment Point 0), RSCH 1 “Research Proposal” (Assessment Point 1), and RSCH 2 “Dissertation” (Assessment Point 2) (see Figure 2 below).
Figure 2. AoL System for the DBA Program
At each of the assessment points, the Research Evaluation Rubric is used to assess student performance. The rubric relies on two other rubrics developed by the College: General Analytical Writing Assessment Rubric and Oral Presentation Rubric. In METH1 course, the basis for assessment is student “mock” dissertation proposal – an exercise where students, based on their limited knowledge of their research domain and high-level understanding of research methods, describe and present a rough plan for their possible future dissertation research. The assessment is done by the instructor teaching this course. This assessment point is used to establish a baseline for student knowledge and skills in relation to the program learning outcomes shortly after they join the DBA program. In RSCH the basis for assessment is the actual research proposal document and presentation. Finally, in RSCH 2 the basis for assessment is the final dissertation document and the final dissertation defense. In RSCH 1 and RSCH 2 assessment is done by the dissertation committee chair. In both cases, assessment results are submitted to the Program Director for analysis. Subsequent changes in the curriculum are subjected to the standard curriculum revision process implemented by the College and presided over by the College Curriculum Committee.
Results
With this simple, robust AoL System, the college was able to “close the loop” in relation to the DBA program in just one year (see Figure 3) below:
Figure 3. Closing the Loop
The results of the newly designed AoL system indicate a noticeable growth in the level at which doctoral students master the PLOs across semesters (see Figure 4 below). These improvements are largely a result of the recommendations for curriculum and policy changes submitted by the DBA faculty participating in the AoL process using the rubrics used in assessment.
Figure 4. AoL Results Across Semesters
The College believes that this assessment method allows for a closer monitoring of individual students with respect to their achievement of the learning goals of the program. The AoL system was received positively by AACSB Review Team.
